For five years ETH researchers, BUWAL employees and environmental activists have crossed swords on the issue of a permit to conduct a field trial with genetically modified wheat (1). The trial was finally carried out in 2004. And last Thursday, Christof Sautter from the ETH Institute of Plant Science who headed the project presented the results.

"I'm very pleased with the results," says Sautter. Every tenth wheat plant with the foreign gene developed the hoped-for resistance to common bunt. This might not sound like very many. In the greenhouse it was around a third. For Sautter it is nevertheless a scientific success. The results from trials carried out in greenhouses and those from field trials are seldom comparable, because the growing conditions for the plants were so different. Under field trial conditions genes are completely differently active as compared to the greenhouse. Precisely because of this it was necessary to test the plants under conditions that were as near to nature as possible. And this is why the plant scientist judges the results to be good: "Further research can now build on the knowledge we have gained“.

Strict security measures

The securities measures set in place for the trial were rigorous. Therefore it is also important for Sautter that the biosavety tests confirmed the very low risks as predicted. The scientists were unable to find any indication that the transgenic trial plants had crossed out into the wheat in the vicinity of the trial or other grasses. Neither did they find any higher antibiotic resistance in the soil bacteria. Scientists also examined the soil for remnants of DNA of the genetically modified wheat; the finding: While snippets of wheat DNA were present, there was no trace of those of the transgenes, themselves. Four weeks after closing down the trial, only traces remained of DNA in the wheat. "The DNA is rapidly and almost completely decomposed in the soil," concludes Sautter from this. The soil samples were examined by Basel's Cantonal Laboratory. In spring 2006 the soil will be tested for the last time for putative left overs of the transgenes.

Buwal sees trial as positive, Greenpeace remains sceptical

The security measures for the field trials were effective, writes BUWAL accordingly in its press release. Despite difficult situations there had never been a reason to call off the trial. Moreover, useful experience had been gained with regard to biosafety. Particularly the use of male-sterile plants as a test system to measure out crossing during the pollinating was recommended.

Greenpeace, meanwhile, remains sceptical. In its press communication the environmental organisation warns of the "risk-construct genetech wheat". The doubts, voiced by critics before the trial, had not been blown away by the evaluation now published. It was still not clear whether the built-in resistance to common bunt would remain stable in the open field. There was, therefore, no telling what "genetech wheat" could do and it was still risky.

High additional costs

The trial was carried out in spring and summer 2004 at the ETH experimental station in Lindau-Eschikon. Why had the scientists not published the results before now? He had the peer review for publication in a scientific specialist journal before making the results public, said Christof Sautter. The results would now appear in the next issue of the "Plant Biotechnology Journal“. For the time being the work is published on the journal's website.

The tug-of-war surrounding this trial cost the scientists a lot of time. In 1999 the research team submitted their first application to BUWAL. At the end of February 2004, they were able to sow the genetically modified wheat, despite entrenched legal battles and the vehement opposition campaign carried out by Greenpeace. Additional costs of 600,000 CHF accumulated; on the one hand, because of the necessary prolongation of the project, and on the other, because of mounting legal fees and court costs. The soil examination alone, carried out by Basele's Cantonal Laboratory, cost 50,000 CHF. Exceptional security measures at the trial location in Lindau swelled the budget even more.

No plans for further field trials

That the ETH Executive Board supported the carrying out of the field trial brought it under harsh criticism. "We have a social mandate to research issues and uncover knowledge," said ETH's Vice-president Research, Ulrich W. Suter at the media conference, defending the Board's decision to support the trial. Genetic technology was a controversial issue and generally portrayed in a very emotional manner by those who opposed it. For him it was important that the results of the trial were unequivocal. "Future researchers can build on this," he said. Suter is convinced that, in the long run, ETH's image will be enhanced and not damaged by this trial. ETH should not be thrown off its course by prevailing political currents. Nonetheless, ETH had no plans for further field trials. The wheat trial in Lindau had left more traces in the minds of those involved than in the soil of the trial field itself.